The Toronto Invitations
by Citizen Investigation Team
September 6, 2011
discuss in detail
here, an event commonly referred to as The Toronto
Hearings will be taking place at Ryerson University in Toronto from
Thursday September 8th through Sunday, September 11th, which will
bring together some of the biggest names in the "9/11 truth
Although the website for The Toronto Hearings claims that "the
best available evidence into the case, discovered in the ten years
since the 9/11 events occurred" will be presented, Citizen
Investigation Team (CIT) has not been invited, and the widely-supported,
conclusive evidence proving a north side approach and flyover at the
Pentagon will not be presented in any meaningful way, and may not
even receive a cursory mention. See "Has
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) Been Invited to the Toronto
Hearings?" for more information.
On the evening of September 11, 2011 -- the tenth anniversary of
9/11 -- we will be
presenting this evidence at The Royal cinema in Toronto, which
is a quick and easy trip from Ryerson University.
This event is sponsored and hosted by Toronto-based author and TV
producer Barrie Zwicker, who felt impelled to initiate it after he,
also a member of the (window dressing) Advisory Committee to the
Toronto Hearings, “realized there was no chance of CIT being invited
to present its crucial 'weighty' evidence at the Hearings.”
We are taking this opportunity to invite all organizers,
participants, and attendees of the Toronto Hearings to our event.
Our event is scheduled to begin at 8pm that evening, after the
Toronto Hearings have concluded, so there is no scheduling conflict.
Furthermore, as outlined below, a number of the organizers and
participants of the Toronto Hearings have launched wanton attacks
against Citizen Investigation Team. Some of them have composed
and/or promoted dishonest propaganda which attempts to defend the
official impact narrative and discredit the evidence we present
proving that the plane did not strike the Pentagon as reported,
thereby establishing that 9/11 was a false flag operation involving
high-level insider complicity.
Although we will have a substantial Q&A session after our
presentation, it will not be a suitable setting for extensive,
thorough debate. We are, therefore, inviting any participant
or organizer of the Toronto Hearings who has a problem with our "methods"
and/or thinks they are able to refute the evidence we present to sit
down with us for a civil, thorough on-camera debate/discussion
while we are all in Toronto.
We will be arriving in the early evening on Thursday, September 8th,
the first day of the Toronto Hearings. We will not be
departing until the early morning on Tuesday, September 13th.
There is no reason that the people who apparently have such strong
concerns with our work and who have attempted to publicly paint us
as dishonest shouldn't be able to set aside a couple hours to take
us up on this offer, "expose" our supposed dishonesty, and refute
the evidence we present proving the plane did not hit the light
poles or Pentagon. We will work with them to find a mutually
convenient day and time.
Although this is not meant to be an all inclusive list, we would specifically like to issue the following invitations to the
1) Kevin Ryan
inviting Kevin Ryan to have a civil, thorough on-camera debate/discussion
with us in Toronto, for reasons including but not limited to the following.
1. He was intimately involved in the publication and
dissemination of the paper “What Hit The Pentagon?” by his close
associate Frank Legge in 2009.
here to read all about this
important episode. Kevin Ryan is one of the two editors of The Journal of 9/11 Studies
(JO911S). The other is Frank Legge. Until recently, there was a
third co-editor: Steven Jones (he recently stepped down). The
three of them were responsible for publishing the various versions
of this horrid disinfo piece, even after the many "errors" and
omissions were pointed out to them. In fact, it was
himself who announced/promoted it on 911Blogger.com when it was
first published. This was the month after National Security
Alert was released, and just days after Jim Hoffman and his wife
released their dual hit pieces against us (see
which the paper in turn referenced as proof that the "overfly
theory has met substantial opposition". Again, read much more
2. In 2010 he became a blogger
at Visibility911.com -- a website which is known for its
aggressive, dishonest attempts to discredit CIT and the overwhelming
evidence that the plane did not hit the Pentagon -- alongside Michael Wolsey, John
Bursill, and Erik Larson, amongst others.
Ryan's fellow bloggers at the site include:
MICHAEL WOLSEY, the long-time host of the Visibility911 podcast.
Just one week after Jim Hoffman and his wife Victoria Ashley published
their hit pieces against us, and just days after Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones published "What Hit The Pentagon?" --
Wolsey had Hoffman on as his guest for an
around the bogus premise that we are disinformation agents.
We can easily rebut Hoffman's fraudulent attacks, which is why he
has never accepted our
open invitation for a public debate while
attacking us from the shadows for four years. In the podcast,
Wolsey himself called us "disinformation specialists" and called our
work "bullshit". After the podcast we
to debate us, and he failed to accept, yet continues to attack
us publicly and privately behind the scenes (example).
JOHN BURSILL, a "former" Australian army
who continuously attacked and attempted to discredit CIT online, finally agreed to
(first and only one in his clique to ever accept), ended up
conceding pretty much every major point and ultimately defeat in the
debate, admitted he and his comrades were out of line, agreed to
stop attacking us, yet went back to doing so shortly thereafter.
He took over the podcast from Wolsey, which he has repeatedly used
as a platform to attempt to discredit CIT and promote the official
impact narrative, even after decisively losing the debate by his own
ERIK LARSON, a long-time moderator at 911Blogger, where CIT
has been attacked and smeared for years. We have been
from the site for years for no reason other than to assure that we
cannot rebut these dishonest attacks. In 2010 all of our most
knowledgeable and articulate supporters on the site -- and indeed
pretty much everyone who expressed their support for us -- were
banned as well (see
here). In 2010, Larson himself wrote two major articles on
the site which tried to fraudulently cast doubt on our "methods" and
paint us as deceptive. We rebutted these bogus attacks (here
challenged him to a recorded debate via telephone,
which he declined.
So these are some of the people whose names appear "in lights" at
the top of the page on Visibility911 alongside Kevin Ryan. As
for Ryan himself...
3. He personally authored a defamatory public
attack against us in October of 2010, which he published on Visibility911.
The article, which can be seen at the following URL, was
reposted by another user on 911Blogger the same day.
In the article Ryan attempts to fraudulently paint us as
He also grossly misrepresents an out of context
quote from Craig in an attempt to discredit him/us. He writes:
question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question
of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to
insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter
of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe
recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really
wanted us to think about.
“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people
on the plane.”
“How did they really die?”
“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”
“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.” 
Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and
to bring justice? Obviously not.
scrolls down to the reference/source for the quote, they'll see that
Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18,
the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is
working so hard.
his source, Ryan
directs the reader to an extremely juvenile, anonymously-created
smear video, within which Barrie Zwicker is labeled a "Senile
Sellout" for supporting our work.
The link that Ryan provides to this video is now dead. This is
convenient for Ryan, because if one actually watches his source
video (another copy of which is currently still online
will see that there is no indication that the quotes he provides are how "[Craig's] presentation ended".
That is because the quotes were NOT from the conclusion of the presentation
as Ryan claims, or ANY part of the presentation for that matter.
The quotes are taken from the *Q&A session* that came *after* the
presentation. Someone had specifically asked what happened to
the passengers and the crew. Craig correctly answered the question, explaining
that this is not something that regular citizens have the resources
to determine -- unlike the flight path of the plane, which has now
been conclusively established via eyewitness testimony, proving that
the plane could not have and did not hit the light poles or
building, and thus that the passengers of Flight 77 did not die in a
plane crash into the Pentagon.
Not only do the out of context clips in Ryan's source video begin
after the question has been asked, but they only show a portion of
Craig's response. The anonymous video creator edited out the
beginning, end, and a portion in the middle (notice the cut around
2:32) before adding his own inaccurate, childish, "parody"
A formal response to this question has been published as the
#1 Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) on our website
CitizenInvestigationTeam.com since the site was launched in mid
"If Flight 77 did not hit the building what happened to its
passengers and crew?"
This is a natural question that arises in people's minds after
viewing the evidence that we provide conclusively disproving the
official impact narrative, and our answer is entirely reasonable.
Similarly, questions like "Who planted all of those demolition
devices in the Twin Towers and Building 7?" naturally arise after
seeing the evidence that they were brought down in a planned
demolition. Ryan can easily understand that neither the simple
asking of that question -- nor his inability to conclusively answer
it -- in any way refutes the evidence that the buildings were in
fact demolished, nor are they grounds for anyone to stop talking
about the evidence for demolition. So, it seems to us that he is
putting forth a hypocritical non sequitur.
Furthermore, Ryan's assertion that demanding the answer to what
really happened to the passengers and crew of Flight 77 is
"obviously" not a good way to "bring justice" is based on the false
premise that we have not disproven the official impact theory.
After all, if we have disproven it, then these people did not
die in a plane crash into the Pentagon, in which case why would we
not demand to know what happened to them? How is doing
so not in accordance with bringing them justice?
We ask Kevin Ryan to discuss these questions with us live on camera;
to discuss his premise that Flight 77 might have (or even did) hit
the Pentagon with us; and to refute our evidence to the contrary.
4. He was intimately involved with the publication and
dissemination of "Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports
the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon"
This was yet another pro-impact article co-authored by Frank
Legge and published in the Journal for 9/11 Studies by Legge,
Kevin Ryan, and Steven Jones. It came out just days after
David Chandler and Jonathan Cole's attack article against us, and
just days before Chandler went on the Visiblity911 podcast (hosted
by with Ryan's fellow Visibility911 blogger John Bursill) to further
As we explained
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is
an organization of aviation professionals and pilots
from around the world who are committed to seeking the
truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September
2001. See the names and credentials of their members
These pilots analyzed the data released by the NTSB,
allegedly from the "black box" of Flight 77, and
concluded that it does not support the government's
[This] paper by Frank Legge is being touted as a
"peer-reviewed" paper debunking the analysis and
findings of these pilots.
Although this new paper concerns the NTSB-released
alleged black box data, none of the authors have
expertise in avionics at all. Credentialed people at
Pilots for 9/11 Truth have already (just like
last time) uncovered several errors and demonstrated
why the conclusion is based on a faulty premise to begin
here for a short explanation by FAA certified pilot
Rob Balsamo of some of the errors he noticed right away,
here for much more thorough analysis and commentary
by an actual FDR expert and others.
The paper repeatedly cites
Jim Hoffman, including, once again, his 2009 article
"Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing
PentaCon (Smoking Crack Version)", which we address
here. It also references
Chris Sarns and the anonymous "Arabesque".
"It is clear that [the
"FDR" file provided by the NTSB] supports the official
account of the course of flight AA 77 and the consequent
impact with the Pentagon. The file thus also supports
the majority of eyewitness reports."
who disseminated and promoted this paper on 911Blogger upon
publication. Furthermore, in the comments
section he can be seen weighing in,
saying to Jonathan Mark, for example:
"...your "truth leaders conference" has spent a considerable
amount of time dealing with, and thereby overstating the
importance of, the flyover theory"
"With this paper we hope to see progress on the many
unanswered questions about the Pentagon but it is possible
that all energies will continue to be consumed with the one
(less important, imo) question of "what hit the Pentagon."
5. He and his co-editor Frank Legge were (and may still be)
preparing to publish two new articles in
the Journal of
9/11 Studies (JO911S) which purport to debunk our work. We have read
a draft copy of one, and it is loaded with disinformation, which we
can easily refute. (Update: That paper has now already been
published on the JO911S "sister site".)
The first paper is by John
Wyndham. On the
“About Us” page for Scientists for 9/11 Truth,
John Wyndham is listed as the groups “Coordinator”. Only four other
names appear on that page along with him, which are (who else but?) Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan,
Steven Jones, and Niels Harrit. Ryan and Legge's JO911S is
described as Scientists for 9/11 Truth's "associated website"
which "contains the results of peer-reviewed research by our members
Here is an "abstract" for Wyndham's paper posted by Frank Legge on
911Blogger.com (only to be removed a short while later -- screen
widespread belief among those who question the official account
of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is
unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth
movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade
is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific
method to the evidence as a whole. This paper, by so applying
the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane
hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.
The second paper is written by Legge
himself, along with David Chandler. The draft copy of this paper is
entitled "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the
North-of-Citgo Flight Path Hypothesis" (update: now changed
to "The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon
Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path"). As the title
indicates, it purports to refute the north side flight path, and
flyover. On 911Blogger.com, Legge
stated that the paper:
...provides evidence that the witnesses to the path of the plane
approaching the Pentagon, who stated that it passed north of the
Citgo service station, must have been mistaken. " The paper
concludes that the only plausible description of the approach is
that the plane did not deviate round the service station but
flew virtually straight and hit the Pentagon, as described by
the vast majority of eye witnesses.
Again, we read a draft copy of
this paper, and it is loaded with disinformation, which we can
easily refute. In fact, we have already refuted much of it
already. A number of the claims made in the paper are simply
reiterations of previous arguments by Chandler and Legge that we
have already addressed at length and demonstrated to be false.
As previously mentioned, the post by Legge from which we are taking
these quotes was removed from 911Blogger.com shortly after it was
published. This is probably (at least partially) because it
made Legge, Chandler, Ryan, and the JO911S look foolish. The
context was that he was soliciting reviewers for the paper (and
Wyndham's paper as well). In the post, titled "It's time to
bite the Pentagon bullet", Legge
two papers in need of review for submission to the Journal of
9/11 Studies. [...] As this is a very touchy subject it has
proved difficult to locate people who are willing to review
these papers. These papers are based on straightforward logic
and thus no aviation expertise is required. Aviation expertise
would however be helpful in deflecting some types of arguments.
This is a call for volunteers to review the papers. If anyone is
interested a response would be greatly appreciated. You won't
find the papers boring.
he wasn't just looking for any old reviewer. He was really
just looking for someone to rubber stamp the paper so that they can
claim it is "peer reviewed" and thus credible, just like they did
last time, and the
time before that. It's not surprising that they are having
such a hard time finding someone to do this, since most people would
not want to ruin their reputation by endorsing such obvious
As a matter of fact, they already found one reviewer: Lt. Shelton
Lankford. Lankford is a retired Marine pilot who has flown 303
combat missions, and a core member of the research organization
Pilots for 9/11 Truth. At their request, Lankford provided a
review of the paper to Ryan, Chandler, and Legge, concluding:
This review has, by necessity, only skimmed the surface of the
flaws of the paper. To do a comprehensive deconstruction of this
document would be akin to attempting a detailed description of
the damage, and what would be required to fix, an automobile
that had been through a salvage yard compacter.
There is nothing wrong with this paper that a trip through a
shredder, and a sincere apology to CIT and the 9/11 Truth
community could not cure.
Not only does Legge
and Chandler's paper claim to rebut the north side flight path, it
also accuses us of "mislead[ing] the public in regard to the
witness testimonies" and not presenting them "fairly". We
are offering Kevin Ryan, Legge's co-editor, a chance to confront us
face to face, expose our supposed dishonesty,
defend the thesis of this paper (and the Wyndham paper), and prove
that the plane flew on the south side flight path and hit the
building as the papers that has been considering publishing claim it did
-- not the north side flight path, as reported by the eyewitnesses
in the best locations to judge, making it physically impossible for
it to have hit the light poles or building, proving that 9/11 was an
Update: Legge and Chandler's paper has now been published at the
website of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911). As
you can read on the front page of that site -- right next to STJ911
co-founder Kevin Ryan's picture -- this is the "sister site" of the
Journal of 9/11 Studies (see also
here). Whether or
not Ryan and Legge will also still publish it in the JO911S as
originally planned is unknown to us. Regardless, our offer
We are (once again) inviting David Chandler to have a civil,
thorough on-camera debate/discussion with us
(in Toronto), in
light of the following.
As explained in detail
here: In January of 2011, David Chandler,
together with Jonathan Cole, published a simplistic, horribly
sloppy, and defamatory essay attacking us. Although we had never
spoken to Chandler or Cole prior the publication of their attack
piece, we had always considered them natural allies, had never
badmouthed them nor had any inclination to do so, and had even
praised their work. Shortly thereafter, Chandler went on the
“Visibility 9-11” podcast, hosted by John Bursill, to bash us more.
On February 3, 2011, we published an extremely thorough rebuttal to
Chandler and Cole's attacks. Please take the time to read it
conclusion, Craig said:
I will conclude by saying that I
have seen examples of both David Chandler and Jonathan Cole's
research into the destruction of the WTC and found it to be
excellent, professional, and certainly "scientific". This is what
makes it so surprising and disappointing that they would resort to
such a sloppy, unprofessional, aggressive, and libelous approach
regarding the Pentagon attack, and specifically the findings of CIT.
It's particularly disappointing that they would resort to this
without bothering to reach out to us even once for a dialogue, or
spending much time at all studying our material (assuming that they
actually believe the many fallacious things they wrote in this
The content and simplistic nature of their essay leads me to believe
that it was most likely written, above all, as a rather emotional and
off-the-cuff reaction to false information about Citizen
Investigation Team, our work, and the Pentagon attack in general
that they have been fed by people like Jim Hoffman and his wife
Victoria. I prefer to hold that opinion before writing them off as
deliberately dishonest like their apparent mentors on this issue.
I would like to formally challenge both David Chandler and/or
Jonathan Cole to debate the issue with me in person and on video. I
will come to them on my own dime. I will assume for now that when
presented with the information in full, and when all of their
questions/concerns are directly addressed, that they will revise
their opinions and realize that they have had a hasty a reaction and
have severely misjudged the situation here.
If they refuse to debate the subject with me directly, yet also
refuse to retract the many untrue and in some cases defamatory
things they have said and insist on leaving this extremely
inaccurate essay up, I think this will speak very negatively to
their honesty, sincerity, honorability, and forthrightness on this
issue, especially given their calls for "intellectual rigor" and
internal self-"policing" of the movement. Here's hoping that such
refusals do not take place. Given the quality and importance of
their WTC work and its synergistic nature to the evidence we have
uncovered during our Pentagon investigation, we have no desire for
the adversarial relationship they have chosen to initiate to
Chandler did not “retract the many
untrue and in some cases defamatory” things he had said, and the
extremely inaccurate essay that he co-authored remains up on his
website and others to this day. Meanwhile, he never accepted this
debate invitation, and he also specifically turned down a request by
the Rock Creek Free Press to debate us in the pages of that
In fact, in a podcast with Jeff Hill a month after we published our
response and issued our invitation, he said this about debating us (mp3):
CHANDLER: I'm not gonna debate
people who I feel are gonna be dishonest. Because, I mean-- the
only-- I mean, that's just a total waste of time. I will sit down
and have a conversation with somebody who's willing to have an open
exchange of information, and where there's some sort of an, uh,
attempt on all sides to arrive at the truth. So I don't mind having
a conversation with people I disagree with. But the kind of
strategies they've used, and the types of character assassination
CHANDLER: And uh, I mean, these
guys are a joke. So, NO I'm not going to perpetuate the discussion
with them. I'm sure they will listen to this thing tonight and write
me up and all the rest...
CHANDLER: But, um, go for it
guys. But uh, that's not-- anyway-.
written about this:
far as [we] know that is the closest he has come to even publicly
acknowledging the existence of our
extremely thorough written
rebuttal to his attacks against us and my
debate challenge, all of
which was published 3 ½ [now almost 7] months ago and sent to him by
numerous people, including us. He simply continues to repeat the
same disinformation talking points against us that we already
rebutted while adding new ones to his repertoire, all while ignoring
an opportunity to expose us as the "scum" (his word) that we
excuse for this is total non-sense, of course. First of all, If that
is really his position, I guess he won't be debating NIST, given the
opportunity. (Or does he think they are "willing to have an open
exchange of information" and will "attempt... to arrive at the
truth"?) Secondly, if anyone has engaged in "character
assassination" it is him. If launching dishonest, unprovoked attacks
in public forums where it is well known that the targets of the
attack are forbidden from responding, and then continuing to repeat
the same bogus attacks even after the target responds at length, all
while steadfastly refusing requests for a debate isn't the M.O. of a
character assassin I don't know what is.
We, on the other hand, "had
never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the
publication of their 'joint statement' on the Pentagon attack" and
"we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed
them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their
work", as explained in the introduction to our response to their
attacks against us. We responded to their attacks in an honest,
thorough, and forthright way while offering to debate them directly,
and have even maintained that "we have no desire for the adversarial
relationship they have chosen to initiate to continue." This is the
opposite of the "strategies" of a character assassin.
we have already explained in the "Kevin Ryan" section, David has now
co-authored yet another article about us and our work, this time
with Frank Legge, which they were (and possibly still are) planning to publish in the
Journal for 9/11 Studies. Not only does the draft copy of the paper
(which we got ahold of) claim to refute the north side flight path
it also ironically accuses us of "mislead[ing] the public in
regard to the witness testimonies" and not presenting them
"fairly". (Update: They have now published it at STJ911,
the "sister site" of Journal for 9/11 Studies.)
We are offering David Chandler a chance to discuss this with us face
to face, expose our supposed dishonesty,
defend the thesis and content of his paper, and prove that the plane
flew on the south side flight path and hit the building as he claims
-- not the north side flight path, as claimed by the eyewitnesses in
the best locations to judge, making it physically impossible for it
to have hit the light poles or building, thereby proving that 9/11 was an
If he sincerely feels that this paper is credible, factual, and
adequately supports his thesis, he should jump at the opportunity.
We are (for
the second time) inviting Jonathan Cole to have a civil,
thorough on-camera debate/discussion with
Cole was the co-signatory (and possibly co-author) of David Chandler's
original article about the Pentagon and CIT -- the one we published
thorough response to. Again, we had never spoken to
had always considered him a natural ally,
had never badmouthed him nor had any inclination to do so, and had
praised his work regarding the WTC destruction.
As with Chandler, we (specifically Craig)
offered to fly to Cole's hometown on our own dime to debate the
issue publicly, and Cole never accepted, yet he also never
retracted his bogus attack piece.
With that said, unlike Chandler -- who has continued to aggressively
attempt to discredit us even after we rebutted him at length, all
while refusing to debate us directly -- we are not aware of any
other attacks by Cole outside of the "joint statement", so we are
still holding out the possibility that he was not a primary author
of the document and agreed to put his name to it without
understanding how utterly shoddy, hypocritical, and dishonest it
was. However, even if this is the case (and it would clearly
be a mistake to assume that it is), it is still not an excuse for
him to leave the document online after we spent a tremendous amount
If Jonathan Cole stands behind his and Chandler's attacks on Citizen
Investigation Team he should present his concerns with us face to
face, and we are inviting him to do so. If he accepts, it will
be him, not us, whose assertions will be shown to be false and whose position(s) will be shown to be indefensible.
4) Richard Gage
We are inviting
Richard Gage to have a civil,
thorough on-camera debate/discussion with
us in Toronto about the 9/11 Pentagon event and our "investigative
here to learn why.
5) Niels Harrit
We are inviting Dr. Niels Harrit
to have a civil, on-camera debate/discussion
with us in Toronto
Harrit recently sent out a rather bizarre e-mail out to a number of
high-profile "9/11 Truth Movement" figures in which he aggressively
attacks us. His view regarding our work and the evidence for a north side
approach and flyover is quite puzzling.
On the one hand, he states that the government "failed"
in its attempt to properly stage the scene to look like a real plane
crash, and that, using Occam's razor and the scientific method, "there was no Boeing in the Pentagon. The best hypothesis is the
truth of the day". He also says, "any layman can
see at a glance that the building could never have absorbed a Boeing
757. You don’t need any qualifications to understand immediately,
that the official explanation is wrong. But it has taken years of
academic acrobatics and multilevel spin to prove that it is right."
On the other hand, he continues: "the CIT charade is irrelevant to the discussion of the Boeing in the Pentagon",
and, in a
separate private e-mail, called the flyover an "unproven
We are curious to learn what Dr. Harrit thinks happened to the plane
if it didn't impact the building or fly over (or does he think there
was no plane at all?)
He also heavily and falsely insinuates that we are some kind of
government agents or provocateurs, making the bizarre, backwards
claim that we "set people up" like David Chandler, even though it
was Chandler who wantonly attacked (and continues to attack) us with
spurious claims, while we merely responded to his aggression,
explained that we did not wish to have an adversarial relationship
to him, and
offered to come to him on our own dime to debate the subject.
Like David Chandler and Jonathan Cole before him, Harrit did not
have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had
any responses to his apparent serious issues before attacking us. If
he has spent any time even viewing the
extensive catalogue of
evidence we have published it does not show. We do know that
he was given a copy of our video
National Security Alert a
number of months back, which he subsequently claimed to have
Harrit is on the four-person Organizing Committee of Scientists for
9/11 Truth alongside Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones.
The "Coordinator" is John Wyndham. (See the
Kevin Ryan section for more information about why this is
here: Gourley is perhaps the most
powerful figure involved with the Toronto Hearings. Besides
heading the International Center for 9/11 Studies (IC911S), the event's primary sponsor, he is also a member
of the five person Steering Committee, and the editor of the final
report. He has recently admitted that the Steering Committee
decided from the outset that we would not be invited to make a
presentation. This is especially significant considering
that the Toronto Hearings' website claims that "the best available
evidence into the case, discovered in the ten years since the 9/11
events occurred" will be presented over the course of the four day
event. Gourley is a close associate of Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and 911Blogger.com owner/moderator Justin Keogh.
see here for more info.
We invite James Gourley to have a civil, thorough on-camera
debate discussion with us about the 9/11 Pentagon event, and the
strength and importance of the evidence against the official impact
narrative, especially the evidence for a north side approach and
7) Jim Hoffman
Jim Hoffman is one of the most outspoken figures in
the campaign against Citizen Investigation Team. He has
labeled us "hoax-promoting" since 2007, and shortly after our
video National Security Alert came out in 2009, he and his wife
Victoria Ashley launched a thoroughly, horribly dishonest and
defamatory public assault against us and the evidence we present.
Meanwhile, he has had an open invitation to debate us since 2007,
which he has steadfastly failed to accept. Read much more
about this history
Last week, on August 25, 2011, Kevin Ryan's close associate Frank
Legge wrote on 9/11 Blogger that he felt it was necessary for the
Toronto Hearings "include a speaker who can present the case for
impact", noting that "Jim Hoffman has volunteered to present the
case for impact" at the Toronto Hearings. Around the same
time, an alteration was made to the schedule on the event's official
website denoting that an "Unconfirmed witness" would be addressing
"Pentagon evidence" on Day Two, which is Friday, September 9th.
(Previously the page said a video of April Gallop would be played.)
Time will tell if this will in fact be Jim Hoffman, but if so, we
once again invite him to have a civil, thorough on-camera debate
discussion with us in Toronto, in which he can attempt to
"expose" our supposed "hoax", prove that the flyover "theory"
is "ludacris" and a "farce" (his words), and that the plane hit
8) Dr. David Ray Griffin
David Ray Griffin is in a much different category than
the other individuals we have mentioned here. He has played an
important role over the years in bringing evidence against the
official impact narrative at the Pentagon to the masses (along with
evidence against many other facets of the official story, of
course). He mentioned our work and the evidence for a north
side approach and flyover in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking,
and gave a very positive review of our video
Alert when it was released in 2009, calling it an "important"
film and recommending it "with enthusiasm". (Read his full
Furthermore, Griffin himself has recently been assailed by members
of the exact same relatively small yet very vocal group of
individuals who purport to be part of the 9/11 truth movement, yet
have spent years dishonestly attacking us and arguing in favor of
the official impact story at the Pentagon. (Griffin has long marshalled the evidence that the reported phone calls from the
planes on 9/11 -- a key pillar of the official story supporting the
"suicide hijackers" myth -- were not authentic, or may
have even been, in some
cases, non-existent. These people claim that "there is no
actual evidence the phone calls were faked, while there is a
substantial body of evidence demonstrating the calls were not only
possible, but did happen".)
After battling some very serious health problems last year, Griffin
has written a new book entitled 9/11 Ten Years Later: When State
Crimes Against Democracy Succeed, which is being published by
Olive Branch Press this week.
The main reason we want to invite Dr. Griffin to have a public
discussion with us is that, in a (rather short) synoposis posted to
the website of the publisher, it is revealed that Griffin "argues
that the intensely debated issue about the Pentagon—whether it was
struck by a Boeing 757—is quite unimportant".
We have of course not yet had an opportunity to read this book,
which is due to be published in a matter of days, but needless to
say, we strongly disagree with this position, and were very
disappointed to learn that he would make such an argument.
Even though we apparently now hold drastically divergent opinions on
the importance of the issue of whether or not the plane struck the
Pentagon (and the relevant evidence), he seems to be in agreement
with us that the question of "Is this issue important?" is, itself,
quite important, considering that his treatment of the subject is listed as one of the main
highlights of the book on the publishers website.
So, we are extending an invitation to Dr. Griffin to have a friendly
(but serious) on camera debate/discussion with us about this
critical issue -- is the evidence that the plane did not hit the
Update: According to
911truth.org, copies of the book will
apparently not be available until September 12th now. In the
meantime, they have published the book's Introduction.
Therein, Griffin writes:
of [Chapter 7] -- "A Consensus Approach to the Pentagon" --
alludes to the widespread sense, both in and outside the 9/11
Truth Community, that, whereas there is a lot of consensus
within this community about the destruction of the World Trade
Center, there is no such consensus about the attack on the
Pentagon. In this chapter, I argue that, although there is
indeed much disagreement on the issue that has received the most
debate -- Was the Pentagon hit by a Boeing 757? -- this is a
relatively trivial point in comparison with an issue about the
Pentagon attack on which the 9/11 Truth Movement has reached
have meticulously documented for years, the supposed "controversy"
("disagreement") surrounding the evidence we have presented is
artificially manufactured by a relatively small faction of dishonest
people working in concert in defense of the official impact
narrative. This is why our detractors (many of whom are
ironically now Griffin's detractors too, and are attempting to
create a similar artificial "controversy" around some of his work)
typically refuse direct debate with us. The reality is that
the idea that a/the large plane impact did not occur at the Pentagon is
widely accepted to the point of being near a "consensus" outside of
In light of this newly-published quote from the introduction to his
book, we invite Dr. Griffin to also discuss with us -- in addition
to the aforementioned "importance" topic -- the (related) premise that there is
actually legitimate disagreement going on, i.e. whether or not our
supposed opposition presents legitimate counter-arguments and
counter-evidence which cast significant doubt on the evidence we
present. We contend that this is a false premise.
Update/Epilogue: Prior to departing for Toronto, we sent
personalized e-mails to each of the eight individuals named in this document to make sure they
were aware of the invitation. None of them accepted.